The atheist paradox

It not so bizarre that atheist and religious preachers share so many things in common than they would admit.

Firstly, both have contradictions in what they preach, yet both see nothing but consistency. I'm familiar with the feeling of being absolutely right. When I was a fundamentalist Muslim I saw Islam as flawless, and it was only when I lost my faith that contradictions started to pop out. I was angry and depressed. I felt I was deceived and hated Islam with all my heart. I started to believe a lot of anti-religion arguments and these 'beliefs' started to appear as flawless once again. Only when time healed my wounds, and my hate toward Islam started to fade away that I started to ask myself who deceived me into Islam in the first place? Why does religion exist? I could only find one answer, the human mind, or to be precise, human genes.

When I stopped becoming hostile toward religion I started to notice a lot of contradictions in a lot of these 'in the name of reason" arguments, in fact, it appeared as just another religion. You do not need a deity or a sacred book to have a religion. I see religion as a necessary illusion that our minds created. We as humans have a simple purpose, to survive and reproduce, and religion is a powerful tool to achieve that.

A lot of atheists seem to think our purpose is to reason and discover the secrets of existence. Perhaps that's why this anti-religious movement is just another religion, it gives its adherents an emotional purpose. just like religion.

One argument is that religion is against nature when it comes to sex, but like sex, religion is natural too. Why support one natural aspect and be against another natural aspect? Another argument is religion is against scientific advancement, but since when was scientific advancement part of human nature? Since the scientific revolution, we humans bred into 7 billion people and damaged our nature so badly. Scientific advancement might even one day lead us into extinction if it has not already.

Do not get me wrong, I'm not against science, I'm just saying that religion seems to be adapting well, and active atheism has manifested into a religion with illusions that only appear true to it's believers.

Replies to This Discussion

I believe you restricted hope to the promises of the after life... if hope makes a difference, no matter true or false then yes it has a value. Please keep in mind that hope does not mean staying still waiting for a miracle.

A lot of atheists seem to think our purpose is to reason and discover the secrets of existence. Perhaps that's why this anti-religious movement is just another religion, it gives its adherents an emotional purpose. just like religion.

Please note that not all atheists ignore emotional and social needs. While most do cling to an intellectual emphasis, fearful of high emotional arousal sabotaging their ability to think for themselves, some of us see this as short sighted.

More widely, atheists often find meaning, or "emotional purpose" as you put it, in human achievement and meaning making, a better alternative than meaning handed down from an imaginary superbeing.

Religious people do give themselves personal purposes and achieve things in their life, religious purposes however strengthen ties between communities and families. I remember reading about a particular Danish community that doesn't really believe in Jesus yet they kept going to church because they realize the social benefits of religion, the pastor himself wasn't even a believer.

It sounds to me like you've had an emotional approach to critiquing your old religion. I would add to Loren's excellent explanation that atheism (at least, for me) is not about about creating a new way of being beyond simply "thinking rationally for yourself". It is more about removing the shackles of religious dogma.

You could argue that humans are naturally inquisitive, and the scientific process (being the ultimate expression of inquisitiveness) is therefore a natural phenomenon. Naturally, we want to improve our quality of life and we use what tools are available to us. I'm pretty sure that, if any other animal species was capable of scientific advancement, they would do it too.

By saying that religion is "adapting well" (or even adapting at all) you are admitting that what has always been considered divine truth is nothing more than man-made and suited-to-the-times. The whole idea of religions, especially the Judeo-Christian religions, is that they are true to the word of god and infallible. If they are not, as adaptation would suggest, they must be labelled as false. To continue to live by the doctrines in these "holy books" after admitting their un-godly origins is bad practice and dishonest.

To carry on any of the religiously-inspired doctrine which is not of any tangible benefit is nonsensical. Hence the necessary removal of religious authority across the board.

Yes humans are inquisitive, but their "inquisitiveness" has variations and limits too. I don't think the scientific process is what you labelled it, some people are extremely curious, but not curious about science, but about other things like gossip and will pay money for it. A lot of people are not so curious.

Religions have always adapted and evolved, what is believed as truth will be reinterpreted and become the new version of truth, religion might one day emit gods and afterlife, and maybe even disappear or become something totally different, but I doubt it would be anytime soon.

Religions generally only adapt or evolve from considerable pressure. Keep in mind, insofar as they are concerned, THEY HAVE THE TRUTH, so why should they NEED to change? The RC church castigated Galileo for his assertion of the heliocentric view of the solar system and didn't admit their error until 400 years later. Their admission regarding Darwin's theory of evolution follows the same pattern.

Ultimately, religion and its god are much as Neil deGrasse Tyson has said: a receding pocket of ignorance in a field of growing knowledge. The only change they're undergoing is their slow but sure loss of influence and, one hopes, their eventual extinction.

The main point you make is clear, as long as you use this loose, catch-all definition of religion as "anything" that gives a person "meaning" or as "a necessary illusion." It would be interesting to know what specific illusions you had in mind and what specific contradictions you see atheists making in the name of reason. This atheism is just another religion argument is also a major ploy used by religionists who cannot understand that people can live without religion, or who want to gain political advantage to get creationism taught in biology classes. One really needs to be precise about what a religion is and what errors in reasoning people are making.